Yes, there is clearly a class and racial divide in Somerville. Thank you, Somerville Patch for even asking the question. The other papers, especially the Journal, would never touch a subject like that. If you guys aren't getting paid for this, you should, because you have been putting the "real" papers to shame.
Anyway, yes that divide exisits, but that's ok because it won't exist in a decade or so. Almost any middle-income resident or lower will be forced out. All over this country the suburbs are becoming the new ghettos and the cities ivory fortresses for the elites. There are now just as many people in poverty in suburbs than there are in cities, and the trend is growing. This polarizing trend is not only a lifestlye inconvienence as working class people commute to cities to service the rich, but it also represents a stratification of society that is unhealthy.

Of course it's divided. Those of us who grew up in Somerville are being priced out. We could never even think of buying a home where we grew up unless we are really *in the money*. Rents are fine if your are several college students sharing, but if you are a family you can forget it. We have been priced out of the neighborhoods we grew up in. To these new comers "affordable housing" is a bad word. *chain link fences and virgin mary statues are a bad thing now??? Not all change is for the better.

There is an increasing divide in Somerville. And contrary to the intuition of many folks that are pro-affordable housing, the divide will get worse with more "affordable housing". Affordable housing reduces the number of market rate housing, making those units even more expensive. Also, the affordable housing is only inclusive of families below a certain income threshold. So we effectively are pricing out the middle income folks: those that are above that threshold but that cannot afford the inflated market rate housing. Also, the very low-income folks are unable to afford the prices of "affordable housing" either, so they are priced out too, unless they find section 8 or something.

Affordable housing allows us to be inclusive of certain pockets of the population, but is not inclusive of all income levels as some would like to believe and argue.

Zac attack, quite the sensitive one, aren't we? Don't get mad, we're only basing our opinions off the words that come out of your mouth. And your rural West Virginia credentials mean nothing to me. Men are judged by their actions, and you have decided to define yourself in this community as the anti-affordable housing guy. Of those 200 signatures, how many of them did you say the development would lower their property value? You had that on your web site, but its not there anymore. Is this a consession that you were wrong? What other lies and fear mongering did you spew when you went to people's houses and told them the sky is falling?

Hi Zac, I dont know what you said at the meeting, so I'm going to remain objective. I do have two questions related to your Union Square Rising website "what you should know" points:

Your questions:
1. "Few residents Somerville residents will be guaranteed an apartment... why not help them?"
2. Past SCC projects hired only 16% of their workers locally: we dont get many jobs if SCC is the boss.

My questions:
1. How do propose to help those Somerville residents that would not be guaranteed an affordable housing unit?
2. Are there other companies that have better statistics for hiring local workers? Specifically, those in the development (retail or residential) field? Are they the same, better, or worse? An array of statistics would be great for making a valued consideration for/against the SCC's practices.

I would appreciate your answers to these comments you pose. Thank you.

I've been a Somerville resident all my life, and i've seen the change from working class blue collar to the young professionals and the condo coversion of two three family housing. I do belive that the blue collars are being pushed out. Somerville has become a satelite city to the Peoples Republic of Cambridge. I have a friend that was born and raised in Somerville but can't afford to live here and has to live in substandard housing in Lowell because there is no affordable housing.

Jim: I understand your concern and feel for your friend, but why are people entitled to live where they want regardless of market prices? I would love to have a house on the beach in La Jolla, CA. But I can't afford it. Should tax payers and nearby homeowners pitch in so that I can have that? There are only so many beach front properties, so how do we pick who the lucky few are that can have one at the expense of tax payers and nearby home owners?

Oh, and while we're being generous, I would also love to have a penthouse in Manhattan and a BMW M3.

Emily: I don't have data to "prove" my theory. Economics is a soft science. But the theory stems from economic principles of supply and demand. Let's assume that we are going to build 40 residential units, and we are deciding whether they will go for market rate or "affordable housing" rate. Let's evaluate both scenarios, assuming nothing else in the city has changed for this instance (no new housing units, etc):

We decide to make them affordable housing. These affordable units will be priced according to the affordable housing policy guidelines. All other market rate housing units in the city will stay the same. Supply of market rate housing hasn't changed. The demand for market rate housing hasn't changed, because the number of people that can afford market rate is still the same. I think this logic is straight forward.

Now let's evaluate what happens if we decide to price the 40 new units at market rate. Again, the demand for market rate has not changed. But all of a sudden the supply of market rate residential units has increased. The laws of supply and demand say that in this case, the overall market rate for residential units will decrease. Again, this logic is straightforward too I think.

In conclusion, if we want a *fair* way to introduce more affordable residential units in the city... we need to add *more market rate* residential units.

SHO - While we all would love to have something amazing, housing is a basic need.This is about creating viable options for people to keep society functioning. You go to a farm stand to buy vegetables. That vendor has made his/her town their home. They can no longer afford to live there. So you still want your vegetables, but that person isnt considered an attribute to your community because they dont have enough money to live there.

Also, I guess if Manhattan pushed out everyone who couldn't afford a penthouse, it would displace thousands of residents. And there goes your community, work force, culture...And I bet the streets would be pretty lonely.

Affordable housing seems to be mistaken here as a 'hand out' to the poor and degenerate. I very much disagree. Affordable housing and section-8 are different things. Section-8 and being homeless are different things. And you have to meet qualifications to even be considered for affordable housing and section-8. You cant walk up and say, hey, I'm poor, give me a house.

Also, to those of you who give money to various charities, outside of your town - 'Charity starts at home.'

And why would you not want to bolster those in your own community - contributing members of society?

SHO - there are actual (independent and MA and nationally oriented) statistics that show repeatedly that this is not the case. I understand your logic, but it is not proven, and in fact the opposite seems to be true based on lengthy studies (and the research was not comprised of economists).

My community is defined by those I interact with every day in my town. People I sit next to on subway, people I buy my groceries from, my neighbors, whether I like them or not. The people who effect me in my town. And there are various sub-community types too - church, dodgeball teams, bar and restaurant community.
(and these are just examples, I dont participate in some of these examples, the point is, there can be endless examples). Contributing members of society are essentially my community at a 10,000 view. And there are those who do not or cannot contribute, but they still have a part in the residential community I live in. what is your community comprised of?

Jim: I didn't say anything about my property value going Into the toilet. I would like my city to be inclusive of all people but I don't think affordable housing is the right way or the fair way.

But to answer your question about segregation and excluding people based on income. It would be nice if it was a thing of the past but unfortunately it is not. Why do you think we have illegal immigrants? They were too poor to qualify for legal migration or visa. Many people in Somerville complaining about them too. Is it ok to exclude them based on income? I know the response to that will be that that's a different issue because they broke laws. My point is that those laws are based on income and skills. They discriminate too. Many people come here legally from
those same countries but they were able to because they had more money.

What is the fair and right way? Not in my back yard?

Logic is just theory until it is tried and tested, whether it sounds reasonable or not. I encourage you to do research on both sides of the argument and see where fact may come into play, whatever the outcome might be - pro or against your logic. I do not think we can or should run on logic alone. And I would highly doubt that this or any construction, business, or other plan does not do a feasibility study before investing in the project, but that may not be true. I have nothing to back my statement, but it seams logical to me :)

And I too wonder what is the right way?
I alsO wonder if you believe in merit based academic scholarship awarded to people that meet certain requirements? This will basically be a merit base housing scholarship.

The recent changes in Somerville are good for everyone currently living here. We will have easier, closer access to new services, with increased commercial properties our taxes will go down, our property values will increase and as more options show up within walking distance, people won’t feel the need to drive as much, so concerns about traffic will become less important. The feeling of “neighborhood” will only improve as more people spend less time in their cars, walk on the sidewalks and get to know one another face to face. I feel pretty fortunate to be in a city with this kind of vision and don’t get why anyone would be against this kind of change.

Jim: for me it's not about being in my back yard. If it was I wouldn't have moved to Somerville. For much of my childhood, my family lived near poverty line. I have family that still do.

Emily: I will do my research. I do believe that construction plans are backed by feasibility studies but I highly doubt that the businesses that stand to profit care about our community or our discussion on fairness. I do believe in merit scholarships because it's a way of attracting the best and brightest. How does that relate to affordable housing qualifications? What is the merit criteria? To me affordable housing is more similar to need based scholarships, which I also agree with because the student generally has to pass merit criteria of being accepted to the school first. Maybe I am missing something but what is the merit criteria of affordable housing?

Jim & Emily: What is the right way? I don't have all the answers but I think a fairer way to achieve diversity is to have more density, more diversity in residential units, and let things run at market rate. By diversity in residential units, I mean single families, multi-families, mid size and large size condo and apartment units. The variety and density should let market forces control who lives where. Those with more money will likely get the single families. Those with less will likely get apartments in large buildings. But everyone gets to live in close knit community. And if you want a single family at cheaper prices, I'm sorry but you have to live somewhere else. Similar to if I want beach front property, I might have to buy in south Carolina because I definitely can't afford it in La Jolla.

My final thoughts. I am all for prosperity and growth in a local community, and have been very fortunate to live in Somerville while on the upswing. However, just as it is gernerally accepted as wise to diversify your investment portfolio, services, and products, I think it is just as important to diversify a city or town's housing options. I think it stimulates more growth. I have not seen any evidence that it brings down home value, though I am open to the notion with some fact supporting information. I would think that if this was truly a concern, that people would be researching it vehemently to find out the true pros and cons rather than relying on opinion and suspect, no matter what the logic is behind it. Find out if it is hurtful or beneficial. Do research. I do not think it is likely that you will find a truly homogenous town in terms of housing options, but it might be! I also do not believe that stiffling the working class, primarily the service industry (trades, food and beverage, educators, etc.) will stimulate economic and societal growth in a town or city.

I appreciate all the comments for and against, and again encourage fact finding before making decisions on logic or opinions. and I am probably a Blue C. Yuppie. I'm happy to stand on the divide. but likely wont be able to live in Somerville for very much longer!

I dont think it is 'fair' to evict tenants so that a building can be demolished for higher priced housing, when there is no other housing in that city or town to go to. So that someone who has worked hard to achieve there residence is now forced into economic depression, only deepening a cultural and economic divide. I am very happy that the plans for this particular building are choosing to re-use a space, rather than driving up production costs, congestion, and wasting materials and fuel sources in new construction. And I think it's ironic that Union Square has been such a proponent for the independent business, cultural diversity, and promoting ethnic food, and the arts, and green construction (the building proposed is to be constructed to LEED specifications) to want to score out those who make these things a possibility. If traffic and congestion and aesthetic is your concern, those are things to talk out reasonably with the city and SCC and contractors. con't

Diversity of food for the wealthy white folk!

Well, I am a bit late to this conversation and I think a number of great points are brought up. The end game is that not everyone is wealthy. Some folks will be able to afford to live in Somerville in 5 or 10 years, others a will not. On one side of the conversation we are saying that it is not fair to price people out of their homes, the other is saying that housing is like any commodity and it's price changes due to demand and that often causes the buyers to change, (e.g. It is fair because it is natural market forces at work).

The conversation about the development in union sq. was less about the affect of affordable housing and more about how a community comes together to identify what kind of place it wants to be in the future and what steps it will take to get there. Some of us like the change that's occurred in the city over the last 30 years, others do not and many have not been here long enough to understand the transformation.

There are a few possible outcomes, but that outcome well be dreaminess by people who vote and participate in community discourse. If you don't like the change, vote your reps out or run yourself. If you do like it, support them.

I want to see a cleaner, safer, more prosperous Somerville. I want Magoon sq to be like Union sq in 5 years, I want the T running by my house. I don't want "to kick out the poor and working class", but it it's likely that unless Somerville increases is density they will be priced out.

i guess the first sentence on the yuppie issue is where you declare your status as a somervillian: i am a native of this fair city.
who made the money from the amazing rise in property values? we( but not i) did. i know many, many people who sold the their houses or their parents houses at a tremendous profit, while sniggling at anyone who would pay such an exorbident price
for the property. the buyers who were considered "fools" then are now thought of as"elitest." i wish i had had a house to sell to these suckers. i'd be on my knees thanking them for the gobs of money they gave me.
the word "yuppie" is a stupid, prejudicial word. my parents( from the old country ) wanted me to get the education they did not have the opportunity to get. so i got it.
they were not alone. every working class family i grew up with had the same desire
for their children.
now many of these these same working class children, with degree in hand,moved into other cities where suddenly they became the yuppies of their new town. so, while you considered your sons and daughters, nephews and nieces, cousins and and friends "successful",others, in their new towns, saw them as interlopers trying out new ideas seemingly without the knowledge and respect for the history of their town. the yuppies are your sons and daughters!
i cherish the memories of the somerville i grew up in and i really like dynamic somerville of today.
well, that's my two cents.

Matan: I think we understand that the economics behind the housing market isn't as simple as we've argued in our examples. Clearly, there are many factors that play a part in the housing prices and market. If it were straight-forward, we would have better ideas of how to fix the housing slump in today's economy.

To your argument about those that can afford luxury items have more resources: this is a good point. But my argument compared 2 scenarios that, for the sake of comparison, kept demand the same. You seem to argue that if we introduce more luxury residential units, people may come from other places to fill those units thereby not alleviating high prices. In other words, demand may fill the supply. That /could/ happen, but generally just because you build it doesn't mean they will come. In other words, just because you build more luxury units doesn't mean people will flock to them. At any given moment, there is a certain level of demand to live in a region due to many factors. One of the big factors, like in the case of Somerville, is proximity to employment centers (e.g., Boston & Cambridge). There will not be more jobs at these employment centers just because a luxury condo building is built.

Yes, it is likely that people that already work in Boston/Cambridge but live somewhere else might decide to live in Somerville if more luxury units are available. But that would happen ONLY if the price decreases. Otherwise, why wouldn't they live in Somerville now?

Somerville's cultural and economic diversity are the main driving factors that make it such a great place to live. The food. The diverse peoples. The arts. The teachers. All of these aspects of the community are augmented by making sure there is affordable housing available to the people who provide them. If the wage and housing "markets" truly functioned as efficient and correct arbiters of pricing, workers would be earning enough at their jobs to be able to afford to live within the same community, but it doesn't, it hasn't and it never will. And even that begs the question of whether it is right to shrug off the effects of letting the haves decide the prices of those commodities that are also basic necessities of life, while also allowing them to decide the wages of the people who need them.

So far, Somerville has been a community that actively mitigates those forces, with living wage requirements for new businesses and with a commitment to making sure that there is at least some affordable housing added in addition to all of the luxury condo projects. Those efforts contribute greatly to making Somerville a healthy and desirable place to live and to conduct business and a great place to raise a family. Somerville's "official" policies promote kindness and compassion and support families, knowing that doing so makes the community better, happier, more prosperous for everyone. I hope the community is strong enough to continue to stand up for those values.

Homes and homeownership - this is stuff that cuts close to the bone for all walks of life. Of course there's a divide – but that doesn't mean we have to behave in a divided way. Addressing the complexities of a multi-generational, multi-ethnic, multi-income neighborhood should be embraced as the lucky challenge it is.
My problem with this whole issue is that the ideas seem so OLD...hasn't this dead horse been beaten over and over again?
I don't know all of the people involved, but I'm willing to recognize the actual day to day efforts and contributions that people are making to address the needs of our evolving neighborhood. All the same we need to watch out for the same old community sand traps. If an issue divides a neighborhood so strongly, chances are there simply hasn't been enough thought put into a long-term vision.